Search for: ""Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" OR "542 U.S. 507""
Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Aug 2016, 7:00 am by Quimbee
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is now included in numerous law school casebooks as one of the most important modern cases construing the nature of executive authority and separation of powers. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 3:30 am by Mark Kende
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), for example, the U.S. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 6:50 am by Benjamin Wittes
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 8:04 pm by Lawrence Solum
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) where he reasoned that enemy combatants who were U.S. citizens have virtually no due process rights. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 6:34 am by Benjamin Wittes
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 535 (2004), and explicitly contemplated the admission of “[h]earsay … as the most reliable evidence” available in some cases, id. at 534–35. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 7:12 pm by Benjamin Wittes
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519 (2004) (plurality opinion); AI-Bihani v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 10:51 am by Benjamin Wittes
In support, the government cites the plurality’s statement in Hamdi v. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 10:35 pm
Rumsfeld (542 U.S. 507 (2004)), as did Judge Michael Mukasey in Padilla ex rel. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 1:37 pm by Benjamin Wittes
Over the last few weeks, Congress and the White House have been circling one another, angling for that final bit of leverage that will define whether President Obama does or does not get to fulfill his first-week-in-office pledge to shutter the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 8:15 am
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) where he reasoned that enemy combatants who were U.S. citizens have virtually no due process rights. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 2:13 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); el se le debe otorgar el derecho a los detenidos en Guantánamo a impugnar su detención a pesar del país estar en guerra en Boumediene v. [read post]